habiticafandomcom-20200222-history
Category talk:Images-iOS
Normally we don't allow creating of new categories but in this case it seems to be a good idea, so if there is an update we can quickly update the images associated with the app. Should we do the same for Android and Website? CTheDragons (talk) 23:46, July 6, 2017 (UTC) I think so, it's a very good sub-classification, because my impression is that the two interfaces are done up by different people, so may update at different rates. Taldin (talk) 01:04, July 7, 2017 (UTC) I think an Images-Android category makes sense, but Images-Website would probably be too broad to be useful. --Sonnet73 (talk) 02:35, July 7, 2017 (UTC) I beg to differ as Images-Website would only be images show menu structures and position of items. All of which is soon going to change when the new website client is launched. CTheDragons (talk) 02:40, July 7, 2017 (UTC) I might be overestimating how many images are involved, but it seems to me that there are many such screenshots scattered across the wiki. If you think you can find them all, though, more power to you! --Sonnet73 (talk) 03:25, July 7, 2017 (UTC) Great! I will create the categories and ask for assistance in the guild tomorrow if there is no objects. CTheDragons (talk) 09:43, July 7, 2017 (UTC) Before going ahead with creating the Images-Website category, could you provide the list of images to be added, to make sure we're on the same page about what should be included? --Sonnet73 (talk) 11:24, July 7, 2017 (UTC) Examples: NOT: CTheDragons (talk) 19:38, July 7, 2017 (UTC) Thanks. I think we're on the same page. But I'm still worried about the number of images that this category would include. I skimmed through Category:CC-BY-NC-SA Files and I'm seeing a lot of website screenshots that would qualify. Even if just 10% of that category would go into Images-Website, that would be around 500 images, with more images to be added in the future. By the way, I'm starting to think that Images-iOS, Images-Android, and Images-Website are not the most descriptive -- maybe Screenshots-iOS, Screenshots-Android, and Screenshots-Website would be better? --Sonnet73 (talk) 19:53, July 7, 2017 (UTC) I like Screenshots. I'm not worried about the amount because I know all those images will need to be updated once we move to the new version of the web client. It will make it much easier to find them if they are classified now than later. CTheDragons (talk) 20:04, July 7, 2017 (UTC) We'd want to update all those images eventually, but some of them will be higher priority than others. We should probably prioritize the parts of the website that will undergo the most dramatic changes in layout, as well as the features that are used most frequently. When there are that many images in one category, it becomes difficult to prioritize. --Sonnet73 (talk) 20:17, July 7, 2017 (UTC) I think that will be difficult to do without knowing what is in the category. Maybe add them all first and the prioritised based on what page they are on? Also I had a thought about the category name Screenshots-iOS, Screenshots-Android, and Screenshots-Website; Should they be, Images-Screenshots-iOS, Images-Screenshots-Android, and Images-Screenshots-Website so it is sorted with all the other Image categories? Thanks CTheDragons (talk) 20:43, July 7, 2017 (UTC) I like the naming convention you suggested. Hmm, would it be easier to skip the step of creating the category and just go directly to the relevant pages to find the website screenshots? Just trying to weigh the costs and benefits. --Sonnet73 (talk) 21:39, July 7, 2017 (UTC) I can see what you mean. However when the change happens it will be quick and all hands on deck. A list will make it much easier for the process to happen smoothly. And also to be clear which screenshots should be updated. (Those in the Keep and Blogs only should not be touched) Also it is good method of helping new scribes to have a large project while getting comfortable with the system. I know for me, I started by updating the descriptions/licensing on images and categories so I could get use to the source editor as well as overall editing in total. Since the scribes are going through the images, we can get them to ensure the licensing is correct and should we ask them to add a summary too? CTheDragons (talk) 21:45, July 7, 2017 (UTC) I definitely see your point. But, as you've probably noticed, I'm pretty risk averse and wanted to make sure we have sufficient information and are weighing the pros and cons before we go ahead with such a large undertaking :) I think part of the reason I'm struggling with this is that it seems like we're creating this category mostly in anticipation of the upcoming redesign. I don't really know how extensive the redesign is going to be -- will it mostly consist of visual tweaks, or is there going to be a more significant overhaul of the layout? And, after the redesign, are we going to continue to add relevant new images to the category, or are we going to abandon it? There are many points of entry to the wiki, so I don't want to be too prescriptive about how a new editor should learn the ropes. But I think the advice that is currently on the Guidance for Scribes page -- start small -- is a good one, and I've seen several examples of new scribes starting on large or repetitive projects, then burning out or losing interest quickly. My general philosophy when it comes to wiki editing is that the wiki will never be absolutely perfect, so I try to make the edits that seem the most important or have the greatest impact. While image summaries are nice to have, they're not strictly necessary. However, if individual contributors wish to add them, they're welcome to. --Sonnet73 (talk) 00:41, July 8, 2017 (UTC) After some thought and discussion in the Wizard Guild, I am now of the opinion that the long term maintenance of these categories are not worth it. (We can fix the past quite easily the long term maintenance is going to be difficult as they cannot be added through the upload pages). Maybe we should delete all image categories and only have the single Image category? (Is it worth it?) Or just delete all image categories. CTheDragons (talk) 00:05, September 1, 2017 (UTC)